NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

[Occam's Banana]

Anthropogenic Porcinogenic Global Warming

https://www.wired.com/story/hungry-wild-pigs-are-worsening-climate-change/

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] (present day):

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1471888928663867399

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2020:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

FTA (bold emphasis added):

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.

In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said.

[...]​

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2022:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1488681845289984002

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1969:

https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/20/...an-will-soon-be-an-open-sea-catastrophic.html

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Thank God the new administration will be changing the MPG regulations on all new cars. We need a Green Planet with a New Green Deal.

 

[acptulsa]

Here's some climate change deniers Chuck Todd will always give all the airtime they want:

 

[Occam's Banana]

(h/t NY Post)
(h/t Not the Bee)

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1972:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1982:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1989:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1990:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2004:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2007:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2019:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1989:

Hey, they were half right. Since 2021 we have been flooded with refugees.

 

[Anti Globalist]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616

Oh look, another climate prediction that is going to age like milk.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Millions and millions of people watch NBC.

It is the largest TV network in the nation, with access to 97% of all homes in the US.

We don't watch NBC.

But "we" are a tiny, insignificant, minority.

Easily stigmatized as loony conspiracy theorist fringe and quixotic. My peeps!

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Oh look, another climate prediction that is going to age like milk.

And just as Dementia in Chief's term expires. Coincidence?

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

I was hoping to see the same picture in 2022.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP]:

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2017:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ef-damaged-beyond-repair-can-no-longer-saved/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...-bursts-back-life-climate-change-still-poses/

Even after their spectacularly failed predictions have exposed them as being completely full of shit, these assholes (and their acolytes) still demand that they be taken seriously as "experts".

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1978:

 

[pcosmar]

It's all too "Hole in the Ozone" for me..

I don't care for pseudoscience. and they gave real science to the Madmen.